exactly m43 requires an obnoxiously long lens to get any amount of bokey on a full body portrait and it still doesn't do as much as nifty fifty will.

Not really true at all. The 45/1.8 does just fine, just like the nifty fifty does on DX or FX. Most portraits that people shoot suffer from too little DOF...the 'one eye in focus, look-at-the-bokeh' is not a look favoured by professionals or their clients.

m43 makes a cool toy but you want to say shoot portraits especially full body and these little camera are at best a pain in the but and at worst cant do it.

This is only partially true. Full body isolation portraits have traditionally been shot with very long lenses. Some favour 85/1.4 on the short end, but most go for 200-300mm. For that, the 75/1.8 or an adapted longer lens will do a great job. Moving back for such work is not usually a problem so there are not a lot of 'gotta have the shot' situations where this is overly relevant.

That said, if that's the look the job requires and your paying clients are demanding, then you should have a full frame kit. In fact, every pro should have a full frame kit anyways. It's not an either/or. Cameras are tools and any good craftsman has more than one tool. That said, the Small Camera Big Picture blog by Giulio Sciorio has a lot of interesting info about moving to an OM-D in a professional environment.

D800 shoots absolutley fine pictures handheld.

This is absolutely true and I agree

infact know what your doing and focus properly you can get pixel level sharpness. the d800 pixel pitch is less than the omd so it actually demands less sharpness from the lens while still taking a sharper picture. Also consider any other nikon dslr. For shooting portrait they are ALL better than an omd

Again, I would dispute this. For creating a shallower DOF, yes, this is true. All larger sensor cameras will do a better job. But that has nothing to do with shooting portraits...